Administrative, Arbitration
Statutory time period for arbitration is a housekeeping rule, not a jurisdictional limit on the scope of arbitrablility of claim.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-3032.Opinion.1-12-2016.1.PDF
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Estate of Wayne Hage
Property, Administrative
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Water rights merely alow for access to divert the water - there are no appurtenant grazing rights implied as an easement of necessity.
Filing of government suit is not a final agency decision subject to review under the APA.
Reassigned on remand.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/13-16974.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Justin Janis
Tribe Law, Agency
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
While tribal police, as a class, are considered federal employees as a matter of law, as they are enforcing order pursuant to a contract with the BIA, the question of whether any person is acting as a tribal officer is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143888P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann
S1983 - DP/4A
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
No error in grant of qualified immunity on claim of unconscionable delay in medical treatment, as there was no clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment or Due Process.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143859P.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Inoel Gonzalez Cano v. Loretta E. Lynch
Immigration
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Sufficient evidence for agency finding that petitioner's social group was too ill-defined to warrant relief.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143730P.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Kelly Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd
Statutory Construction
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Anti-gambling statute does not have an implied cause of action for third parties to recover gambling losses from websites that hosted the game, but that were not the winning parties in the game.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-15/C:15-1887:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1688160:S:0
Fourth Circuit: Philip McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Contracts
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Under state law, lack of a showing on substantive unconscionability of the agreement does not bar a finding of unconscionable inducement.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/142126.P.pdf
Third Circuit: In Re Trump Entertainment Resorts
Labor / Bankruptcy
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
The Bankruptcy Code provisions referencing CBAs apply to the terms of the prior CBA left in place after the end of a prior CBA -- the District Court therefore had jurisdiction under the Code to allow modification of the terms of the agreement, subject to the close scrutiny of the court.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144807p.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)